squads_add_users

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the async nature ('async 202') and the per-call batch limit (1–1000), which is useful. However, it does not mention idempotency, permission requirements, or behavior on partial failure, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with the core action front-loaded ('Add specific users to an internal squad') and constraints efficiently parenthesized. No redundant words; every element contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter tool with no nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the action, scope, batch size, and async response. It does not explain how to verify async completion or handle errors, but for its simplicity the definition is nearly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (squadUuid, userIds), giving 100% schema coverage. The description's '1–1000 per call' duplicates the schema's minItems/maxItems constraints without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Add specific users to an internal squad.' The qualifier 'specific' differentiates it from sibling 'squads_add_all_users', and 'internal' contrasts with external squad tools. Clear, unambiguous, and distinguishable from siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use for a defined subset of users (1–1000 per call) as opposed to all users, but it never explicitly names alternatives like squads_add_all_users or squads_remove_users, nor does it state when not to use this tool. Usage context is implicit rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.